HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
KIRBY J
IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATIONS BY ANTHONY JOHN PINKSTONE
Re Pinkstone's applications
[2003] HCA 46
Date of Order: 27 May 2003
P25/2003 and P30/2003ORDER
1.Order expedition of the hearing of the applicant's applications for special leave to appeal to this Court;
2. Order consolidation of those applications;
3.Direct that the applications be heard during the special leave list of the Court in Perth in October 2003 if no earlier date is found by the Registry acceptable to both parties;
4. Refuse bail; and
5. Certify for the appearance of counsel in chambers.
Representation:
The applicant appeared in person
K P Bates for the respondent (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (WA))
Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.
CATCHWORDS
Re Pinkstone's applications
Practice and procedure – High Court – Expedition of hearing of application for special leave – Bail – Applications by prisoner in custody – Relevance of applications, if successful, to custodial punishment – Preservation of utility of appellate jurisdiction – Whether applicant has exhausted application for bail in State court – Whether bail available in State court when exercising federal jurisdiction – Need for special circumstances – Relevance of fact that special leave not yet secured – Consolidation of applications – Addition of ground of application for special leave.
High Court – Practice – Special leave application – Expedition of hearing – Bail – Consolidation of applications – Addition of ground of application.
Words and phrases – "supply".
Constitution, s 73.
KIRBY J. This is an application for bail and other orders pending a hearing in this Court of proceedings brought by Mr Anthony Pinkstone ("the applicant").
The background facts
The applicant was tried in the Supreme Court of Western Australia on counts of an indictment charging him with two offences against the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) ("the MDA") as applied to the Perth airport by the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970 (Cth) ("the Commonwealth Places Act"). The offences charged were: (1) that the applicant at Perth airport on 7 October 1999 had supplied to Mr Wayne Yanko a prohibited drug, namely a quantity of methylamphetamine, contrary to s 6(1)(c) of the MDA and, (2) that the applicant at the same place and earlier on the same day had attempted to supply to Mr Michael Brazier and Mr Paul Brazier a prohibited drug, namely a quantity of cocaine, contrary to s 6(1)(c) and s 33 of the MDA.
After a lengthy trial in the Supreme Court of Western Australia the applicant was found guilty by a jury of both offences. He was convicted by the trial judge. That judge sentenced him to 10 years imprisonment on the offence of supply and six years imprisonment on the offence of attempted supply. That left an aggregate term of 12 years 3½ months from 13 October 1999 when the applicant had first…
Continue reading Re Pinkstone's applications
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Re Pinkstone's applications [2003] HCA 46
- Case
- [2003] HCA 46
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Court were whether to grant expedition for the hearing of the applications for special leave to appeal, whether to consolidate those applications, and whether to grant bail pending the determination of those applications. The Court was also required to consider the relevance of the applications, if successful, to the custodial punishment already imposed, the need to preserve the utility of the appellate jurisdiction, and whether the applicant had exhausted applications for bail in the State court. The Court also considered the availability of bail in a State court when exercising federal jurisdiction and the need for special circumstances to justify the grant of bail.
Kirby J considered the principles governing expedition and bail in the High Court. His Honour noted that expedition is an exceptional remedy, requiring a compelling reason, and that the preservation of the utility of the appellate jurisdiction is a relevant consideration. Regarding bail, His Honour referred to the general rule that bail is not available to a prisoner appealing against a custodial sentence unless special circumstances are shown. His Honour found that the applicant had not exhausted his remedies in the State courts regarding bail and that the grounds for seeking bail, including the inability to fund counsel, did not constitute special circumstances warranting the grant of bail by the High Court.
The Court ordered the expedition of the hearing of the applicant's applications for special leave to appeal and directed that they be heard during the special leave list in Perth in October 2003, if an earlier date acceptable to both parties could not be found. The Court also ordered the consolidation of those applications. However, the application for bail was refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Order expedition of the hearing of the applicant's applications for special leave to appeal to this Court;
2. Order consolidation of those applications;
3. Direct that the applications be heard during the special leave list of the Court in Perth in October 2003 if no earlier date is found by the Registry acceptable to both parties;
4. Refuse bail; and
5. Certify for the appearance of counsel in chambers.
Background
Background to the litigation
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by:
Full text does not contain this section.